Climate experts' views on geoengineering depend on their beliefs about climate change impacts

Public perceptions and support of climate intervention technologies across the Global North and Global South

Novel, potentially radical climate intervention technologies like carbon dioxide removal and solar geoengineering are attracting attention as the adverse impacts of climate change are increasingly felt. The ability of publics, particularly in the Global South, to participate in discussions about research, policy, and deployment is restricted amidst a lack of familiarity and engagement. Drawing on a large-scale, cross-country exercise of nationally representative surveys (N = 30,284) in 30 countries and 19 languages, this article establishes the first global baseline of public perceptions of climate-intervention technologies. Here, we show that Global South publics are significantly more favorable about potential benefits and express greater support for climate-intervention technologies. The younger age and level of climate urgency and vulnerability of these publics emerge as key explanatory variables, particularly for solar geoengineering. Conversely, Global South publics express greater concern that climate-intervention technologies could undermine climate-mitigation efforts, and that solar geoengineering could promote an unequal distribution of risks between poor and rich countries.

Naming and shaming as a strategy for enforcing the Paris Agreement: The role of political institutions and public concern

Enforcement is a challenge for effective international cooperation. In human rights and environmental law, along with many other domains of international cooperation, "naming and shaming" is often used as an enforcement mechanism in the absence of stronger alternatives. Naming and shaming hinges on the ability to identify countries whose efforts are inadequate and effectively shame them toward better behavior. Research on this approach has struggled to identify factors that explain when it influences state behavior in ways that lead to more cooperation. Via survey of a large (N = 910) novel sample of experienced diplomats involved in the design of the Paris Agreement, we find support for the proposition that naming and shaming is most accepted and effective in influencing the behavior of countries that have high-quality political institutions, strong internal concern about climate change, and ambitious and credible international climate commitments. Naming and shaming appears less effective in other countries, so further enforcement mechanisms will be needed for truly global cooperation. We also find that the climate diplomacy experts favor a process of naming and shaming that relies on official intergovernmental actors, in contrast with studies suggesting that NGOs, media, and other private actors are more effective at naming and shaming. We suggest that these tensions-the inability for naming and shaming to work effectively within the countries least motivated for climate action and the preference for namers and shamers that seem least likely to be effective-will become central policy debates around making cooperation on climate change more enforceable.

Research on the national climate governance system toward carbon neutrality-A critical literature review

Global climate governance has entered the era of carbon neutrality, as a growing number of countries have set the goal of carbon neutrality for long-term emissions reduction toward the mid-21st century. In 2020, China also pledged itself to the goal of carbon neutrality, which creates an urgent demand for this country to establish a systematic and integrated national climate governance system. Against this background, this paper conducts a systematic literature review of climate governance systems from the perspectives of top-level design and the governance paradigm to bring insights into climate governance toward carbon neutrality. The results show that although there are interactions between decarbonization and other environmental, social and economic fields, research gaps still exist when enhancing climate governance toward carbon neutrality. For example, issues regarding incorporating climate factors into the overall economic and social layout, strengthening the capacity of data collection relevant to climate adaptation, integrating climate mitigation and adaption actions, as well as connecting domestic climate governance and international cooperation, need to be further addressed. In addition, within the national governance system, studies combining both regional and sectoral concerns and the intertemporal dynamic allocation mechanism need to be further addressed when China decomposes its national climate target. Moreover, the division of power between the central government and local government, as well as the communication scheme between government and non-state actors, also turns out to be important for effective governance. Based on this analysis, policy implications are further proposed for China's formulation and implementation of long-term strategies of climate governance toward carbon neutrality.

Toward constructive disagreement about geoengineering

A shared taxonomy of concerns may help.